On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 07:15:29PM -0700, Connor Behan wrote:
> On 13/03/13 06:57 PM, oliver wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:56:35AM +0100, oliver wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:31:47PM -0400, Allen Li wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Limiting repeated actions also sounds good (if someone real
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Daniel Wallace
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +, Xyne wrote:
>> Ionut Biru wrote:
Well, technically, it is just ~23h from my last email but hopefully
Brock.Zheng will agree to call this "one day". :P
>>
>> >mate, you did something wrong, stop tr
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +, Xyne wrote:
> Ionut Biru wrote:
>
> >mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your
> >actions.
> >
> >please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any
> >issues with the build and give them time to accommoda
On 13/03/13 06:57 PM, oliver wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:56:35AM +0100, oliver wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:31:47PM -0400, Allen Li wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Limiting repeated actions also sounds good (if someone really needs to,
>>> e.g., flag a lot of packages, they can just drop a requ
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:56:35AM +0100, oliver wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:31:47PM -0400, Allen Li wrote:
> [...]
> > Limiting repeated actions also sounds good (if someone really needs to,
> > e.g., flag a lot of packages, they can just drop a request here and let
> > a TU handle it), bu
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:31:47PM -0400, Allen Li wrote:
[...]
> Limiting repeated actions also sounds good (if someone really needs to,
> e.g., flag a lot of packages, they can just drop a request here and let
> a TU handle it), but it doesn't really stop spammers. They'll just make
> more accou
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:31:47PM -0400, Allen Li wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55:26AM +0100, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> > Other options:
> >
> > * Deny the repeating of a specific action... e.g. you may not flag more
> > than ten packages within ten minutes. Also block comments with s
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:44:26AM +, Xyne wrote:
[...]
> How hard would it be to create an action queue for comments and flagging?
>
> The idea would be to add a new field to the user accounts table (e.g. a
> boolean
> named "supervise"). The default value would be true for new accounts. The
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55:26AM +0100, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> Other options:
>
> * Deny the repeating of a specific action... e.g. you may not flag more than
> ten packages within ten minutes. Also block comments with same content.
>
> * ability to report users (dunno if already possib
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>Status quo:
>
>06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
>06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
>every comment and flag out of date
>
>The account suspension feature does not help here.
>
>Options:
>
>* Allow package
On 13/03/13 05:06 AM, Johannes Dewender wrote:
> Please merge
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/picard-plugins-lastfmplus/
> into
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/picard-plugins/
>
> The lastfmplus plugin is now included in the base plugin
> package.
>
> --
> JonnyJD
Merged, thanks!
sign
Ionut Biru wrote:
>mate, you did something wrong, stop trying to find out excuses for your
>actions.
>
>please do not delete builds like that anymore, leave comments about any
>issues with the build and give them time to accommodate with the changes
This.
Obliterating votes and comments and forc
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:14:37 -0500, Zack Buhman wrote:
> aur/nss-pam-ldapd [1] was moved to community/nss-pam-ldapd [2]
>
> aur/nss-pam-ldapd [1] should be deleted.
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/nss-pam-ldapd
> [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nss-pam-ldapd
Handled, tha
aur/nss-pam-ldapd [1] was moved to community/nss-pam-ldapd [2]
aur/nss-pam-ldapd [1] should be deleted.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/nss-pam-ldapd
[2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nss-pam-ldapd
Hello,
please delete goffice-light. I think it is not needed. The only dependencies
build fine with goffice from [extra].
Best Regards Stefan
Den 13-03-2013 15:36, Kwpolska skrev:
Maybe block the ability of commenting and flagging in the first 24
hours of an user account’s existence?
I'm (wildly) guessing that most "regular" users sign up for the sake of
making a comment. Requiring them to wait 24 hours before being able to
do so d
There have been exactly zero spammers on the ArchWiki since the
captcha was added for registration, the last time a user had to be
blocked was 2011.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> Status quo:
>
> 06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
> 06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
> every comment and flag out of date
>
> The account suspension feature does not hel
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:23:53PM +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 06:59:59PM +0800, Felix Yan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:48:50 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 11:33 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > > > Status quo:
> > > >
> > [...]
> > >
Hi, I hope I'm at the right place to ask for help, but let's begin :)
The KOLAB (http://kolab.org/) Groupware project is searching for AUR
maintainers for their open source groupware solution.
Unfortunately, this project is not well known outside of Germany.
Therefore, probably you've never hear
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:37:35AM +0100, Martti Kühne wrote:
> IMWO TUs can wait 2 weeks after sending an email like all other normal people.
> This isn't schoolyard people, come on.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i
If two weeks is an unwritten rule ( which makes sense IMHO, even I'm unpatient
by myself ;-)
Please merge
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/picard-plugins-lastfmplus/
into
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/picard-plugins/
The lastfmplus plugin is now included in the base plugin
package.
--
JonnyJD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hi,
i would like to suggest a captcha only on user registering. And some
time/quantity limit for some actions, like said before: 10 "out of date"
within an hour (a real user takes a time verify that a package is really
out of date; and this rate does not block real people to help verifying
package
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55:26AM +0100, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>
> >Status quo:
> >
> >06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
> >06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
> >every comment and flag out of date
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 06:59:59PM +0800, Felix Yan wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:48:50 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 11:33 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > > Status quo:
> > >
> [...]
> > >
> > > * Use CAPTCHAs during account registration. We could either use MAPTCH
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:48:50AM +0100, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 11:33 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > Status quo:
> >
> > 06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
> > 06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
> > every
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:48:50 Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 11:33 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > Status quo:
> >
> > 06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
> > 06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
> > every com
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>Status quo:
>
>06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
>06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
>every comment and flag out of date
>
>The account suspension feature does not help here.
>
>Options:
>
>* Allow package
On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 11:33 +0100, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> Status quo:
>
> 06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
> 06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
> every comment and flag out of date
>
> The account suspension feature does not h
Hi,
I'll start this off with an anecdotal story:
When I first became a TU, I just gave short (but polite and friendly)
notices when moving packages from AUR to [community], because I felt I was
in the right to just move them at will (if they fullfilled the requirements
for being moved, of course)
Status quo:
06:54 < gtmanfred> ok, it really is time for something else
06:54 < gtmanfred> the spammer is now creating a new account for
every comment and flag out of date
The account suspension feature does not help here.
Options:
* Allow package maintainers to block the "Flag pack
On 03/13/2013 05:49 AM, Daniel Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A TU "gtmanfred" have just decided to remove one of my package just
>> one minute after he commented on the package pointed out the missing
>> package() in the PKGBUILD without an
IMWO TUs can wait 2 weeks after sending an email like all other normal people.
This isn't schoolyard people, come on.
cheers!
mar77i
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 14 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 35 packages missing signoffs
* 14 packages older than 14 da
34 matches
Mail list logo
